Menu

Genetic Celebrity

Before you hurl in disgust, watch this TED episode to the end. It’s important you do since the real meat of what Cameron Russel discusses here is towards the end. It’s very easy to dismiss her musings here as just another pretty girl suffering from liberal white privilege guilt, but what she’s driving at here is an inversion of the body (fat) acceptance movement.

Today’s topic comes courtesy of Burrough’s SoSuave forum thread, and after watching this video I felt there was a lot of interconnected gender and social issues being danced around. I have no doubt Cameron is one of the more intellectually developed ‘super models’ of the past decade or so, but her apologetic observations here are only effective because she aligns them with what she knows will be received well from a fem-centric audience.

PlayHerMan had the best comment from that thread which puts her message into context before I go any further:

Well most attractive women don’t start to really understand how the world works until they start losing their looks. Most of them are truly oblivious to the fact that their looks have opened probably 95% of the doors in their lives. I’m guessing the chick in the video was oblivious too when she was 22. This is why she is talking about it NOW and not THEN. If you told her this crap back then she probably would have called BS.

Now that she is past her “prime” she has realized her looks meant everything in her life. Once her looks deteriorate, she will be tossed out of the industry like yesterday’s donuts and be invisible to most men of dignity.

Once the bloom of youth starts to fade and stuff starts to sag.. its a real wake-up call for most women. For the first time in their lives everyone is not kissing their ass. For the first time in their lives they have to pay a speeding ticket. For the first time in their lives they actually have to be qualified or connected to get a job. For the first time in their lives, men are not drooling over them. For the first time in their lives they face the harsh reality that all men face from adulthood onward = Be useful or perish.

Entitled women who figure this out early get knocked up ASAP so they can mooch off the state as an insurance policy should they not find a willing man to serve them financially.

If you spend your life in delusion exploiting men and thinking you can live that way forever, its a harsh wake up call when you find yourself in your 40’s with no skills, no money, no kids and no men to take care of you. Scary stuff.

PlayHerMan gives us a good point of origin here. Cameron is having her ‘come-to-Jesus’ moment in that, while she’s still attractive as she’s aged, she sees the Wall for what it is finally and requires some sense of catharsis, some degree of absolution, for having lived in (willful?) obliviousness of it for so long. She knows full well that the majority of the womyn in a TED audience will likely have gone through various stages of hating women exactly like her in their upbringing. She also knows that at some stage she’ll gradually have to join their ranks in a post-Wall existence and needs to make the peace with them in order to coexist in their own phase of life.

For their own part, these women living on the outside of beauty, in the context Cameron represents to them, even the most staunchly intellectual amongst them wants to feel some sort of kinship with her. These are the women who’d hack up in disgust at commercials with the message “don’t hate me because I’m beautiful”, but when Cameron delivers the same message in a more intellectually palatable way, they embrace her surrender to the greater sisterhood. The hate her, but they love her.

The Genetic Celebrity

Cameron Russel is correct in one assertion, she did win a genetic lottery, contextually speaking. She’s been too insulated in her own version of model’s girl-world to really have pause to think any deeper about beauty and the biological associations with it beyond what’s served her feminine solipsism. She acknowledges the genetic aspect of beauty, but only insofar as she’s experienced the utility of it in her very insular model’s world. To her, beauty is just the luck of the draw. Maybe a woman can enhance herself with cosmetic surgery and maintaining her diet, exercise, etc. but for a girl who already benefits from natural good looks and a high metabolism at an early age, you can hardly expect her to develop the insight to see beauty beyond fate or luck.

As with most women in search of a rationalization for the unforgiving brutality of their genetic draw (or inability to build upon it), she predictably resorts to the beauty-as-social-construct feminist trope. It’s interesting that even former supermodels will embrace feminist boilerplate when it serve their interest better than their looks used to. You see, it’s not that you’re not beautiful it’s that thepatriarchy society has perverted beauty into what’s commercially applicable.

While this fem-centric rationale serves to assuage many an HB4’s sexless Alphaless existence, there is one kernel of truth to it. It’s not that men respond to a prefabricated social norm for beauty, it’s that we tend to idealize certain biological templates for beauty. In Why Men Are The Way They Are Dr. Warren Farrell describes this idealized female as a Genetic Celebrity. This is the girl that most closely resembles what a teenage boy sees as his dream girl. She is the one who in real life best matches the Playboy Centerfold, the SI Swimsuit Model, the TV personality, etc. who turns him on. This is just the surface level idealization, however, the degree of idealization becomes further compounded with layers of idealized personality, a woman’s sincerity, an emotional connection, sexual availability, and a host of other attributes is added as a man matures.

That said, in the beginning, the Genetic Celebrity is what most boys start with. Show me a guy with really bad ONEitis and I’ll show you a guy who’s psychologically sold on her being his Genetic Celebrity ideal on some level of consciousness. For myself it’s easy, I love pretty blondes with flat stomachs, long legs, perfect small asses and mediumish tits. Back in the 80’s Heather Locklear was my teenage Genetic Celebrity template. Since then I’ve experienced a variety of different women, but by far the most common recurrence of woman in my LTRs, including the evil BPD, and yes, Mrs. Tomassi, have followed this Genetic Celebrity template.

I think it’s very important for men to recognize this preferential template in themselves. I don’t think it’s inherently a bad thing, but it can predispose a Man to make bad decisions, relinquish frame or develop ONEitis to make that dream girl come true for himself despite the dangers she may represent.

While I can’t pinpoint it now, I think there may be a vestigial, psychological purpose to a man developing a genetic template for his idealized mate. Sex sells for obvious reasons, and commercialization of sexuality picked up on this long ago, but the added bonus for commercial interests is the compulsive tendency for men to imprint that template in their psyches.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that this template is the result of it being manufactured for men – this is feminism’s rationalized ego salve – the associations a guy must make to elevate a woman to Genetic Celebrity status are founded upon the environmental sexual cues that we evolved long ago. In other words the reason Heather Locklear was my template, instead of Rosy O’ Donnell, was due to her physique aligning with what my hard-wired sexual response found arousing. If it were true that beauty is a social construct, then it would stand to reason that with enough social reengineering the Rosy O’ Donnells of the world end up becoming Genetic Celebrities. The lie in this, and in Cameron’s beauty analysis, is the genetic part of the description; it’s the biomechanics that make beauty in the first place.

Post navigation

83 comments

If women had any sense of reality…they would know that looks, their womb, and motherly instincts are the only useful things of value they have. They wouldn’t abuse those things like they do all the time.

Great post sir, I watched this video on CNN couple of days ago. Before finding of your blog, I would have tended to ‘understand’ her ‘pain’ but this time I wasn’t having any of it.

I was sad due to my girlfriend dumping me for another guy. And just couldn’t move on. I was on Yourbrainonporn.com and there some guy just left a link of your website. Thank God I clicked it. There was no other way I would have found out the reality. How many relationships, how many years of depression (medical) you have removed from my life.

Intelligence and a lot of other traits are also genetic lottery. Then you work to make the best out of them. I wonder if she would make a similar conclusion that being intelligent / successful is an evil social construction.

“I get free things for how I look not who I am”. So who exactly gets free stuff for who they are? if you belong to a powerful family or have status, that’s still not who you are. If you’re the CEO of some big company or have influence or famous for something you did, that’s still not who you are. We can complain about the superficiality of things, but superficiality is all we have when dealing socially. People bend to power. Beauty is power so people bend to it. Is she suggesting we strip women from their beauty power, while we keep the male version of power based on achievement?

First of all, I have to thank you Rollo, for opening my eyes. Your blog has helped my life, not only in the sex front, but in general, more than I can put words to.

This post gave birth to a rather interesting question: Does the type of Genetic Celebrity template that you’re hard-wired to tell or indicate something about you, in the sexual context or otherwise? I mean, does your sexual preference, be it thin, athletic, chubby or anything in between, tell something about you?(I’m leaving out the fringe groups of superfat, skeleton and roidmonster, since I just can’t wrap my head around those)

Could it not really be said of virtually all men from adolescence on no matter how handsome or ugly, socially adept or as socially inept, etc. BE USEFUL OR PERISH while most women from adolescence to young adulthood do not experience this harsh reality that men do? I readily admit some women because of their beauty are given more passes and better passes than others. Even after women hit the wall and are quite old, they on average seldom experience the unrelenting, un-repenting with no recourse harsh realities that men do from the beginning. Treat an average woman half as harshly as an average man is treated and watch her scream in agony while the men remain silent. Most women especially in the West and in particularly in the USA have no clue as to what it is to live life as a man. Most are stupid enough to believe in the Apex fallacy because they look up t see how wonderful it is to be a top man, they perceive it to better to be a top woman. They are mostly right, but they have no idea how hard it is to become a top man, and how precarious his position is as someone is always “GUNNING” for his spot. They never look below to see that most men at the bottom have it much worse than women at the bottom. Men also have a tendency to put on a stoic face if not a happy face when things aren’t going their way even if they are miserable. Men have a tendency to experience longer and more intense periods of joy over very small pleasures. Men learn to be content or become suicidal. Women are more likely to have other people care about what their problems and heartaches are. Men have a much greater tendency to have no one care about what their problems, heartaches and even their human worth are.

Can I put this in the same category of a rich man telling a poor beggar that ‘Money doesn’t buy happiness”?

What’s so wrong with I was blessed with great looks and I used them to gain an advantage? I didn’t see Shaq telling people he won the genetic tall lottery and is ashamed that he made it as a star in the NBA and that short men are equally viable in the athletic realm. Women are simply not happy no matter what their circumstances. LOL.

It just seems that this lady used this talk to attention whore and reinvent herself off as an intellectual. For that though she does deserve recognition. Her modeling career is coming to an end, and she is working the system like any smart human.

I think that what drives some of these arguements is that they take an inch of truth and run a mile with it. Tall and slender really aren’t the holy grail of female physical beauty. Having a waist to hip ratio of 0.7 is the ultimate indictator of body attractiveness. That’s doesn’t mean you can be overweight but staying within normal body fat percentages and having that ratio will be biological preferred across cultures. So some of what constitutes of what’s considered the very best of body types is determined by gay fashionistas, thus tall skinny small titted manjawed women are shown in Vogue.

That’s brings up another point, a lot of guys don’t really give a fuck about fashion models. If given the choice between banging Gianna Michaels and this bird. I’m thinking that Ms.Michaels wipes the floor with this lady. It’s other WOMEN that care about being a tall twig with no jugs with an androgynous symmetrical face because homosexual fashion designers told them to. It just shows how easy they are to manipulate.

TED talks have really gone downhill. It would have been more useful if this model simply came out and said, “Don’t do what I did, make yourself useful to society, be productive.” But the ladies still don’t get that, they still obsess over the most genetically lucky of themselves and try to tear down the pretty and uplift the ugly. Instead of judging themselves by their use, they continue to judge themselves by their SMV and try to artificially unbalance the SMP to alleviate their non-problem.

This model strikes me as someone who while well-spoken, really has absolutely no clue what she’s talking about. She focuses on “image” and genetic lottery and how powerful it is without stopping to consider if usefulness, resourcefulness and availability are not more powerful motivators towards success. This girl was attractive while young, and that helped. However as her own slides clearly showed, she made time for photo-shoots; she made herself available even on days when she was to be with friends. Those pictures of same-day as shoots demonstrate just how NORMAL she looks outside of the altered photos. Further, she acknowledges that those published images are “not her” and that there’s an army of people who alter the image to make it what the ad agency wants. In this way she undermines her own point about image and genetic lottery without even acknowledging that she did so.

Ladies: the real scale of beauty is logarithmic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm), it approaches but never touches perfection. More importantly, significant jumps in the rarity of any particular beauty accompany ever more insignificant gains in beauty (read that again until it makes sense). Winning the genetic lottery means you’re 0.0000001% more beautiful than someone who is only 1 standard deviation away from average. In other words, it’s meaningless. For the audiophiles among us, they understand this very well. You can pay $200,000 for a stereo system, and yes your system will be better than your average Denon home theatre package, however it will only be a very tiny fraction of a percent better, which means you have to have perfect hearing to notice the difference.

So she calls herself a genetic lottery winner (a dubious claim), demonstrates how normal she looks outside of her model shoots, throws a few personal anecdotes about cops leaving her alone (btw, all girls I know have stories like this, ALL OF THEM), and somehow she feels she has a worthwhile talk about how image affects discrimination?

*YAWN*… I’ll go make myself a drink and try to forget the brain cells I wasted on this model talk.

This video is a perfect example of self-promotion.
It is fantastic, and it will work great for Cameron future.
Kudos for the one who got the idea to get her on TED.
But still her statements are simply false.
Nice to watch, though 😀

Interesting side note: whenever I publish posts about body image (even ‘Looks’ posts pertaining to men) female commenters feel it’s incumbent upon them to defend the NAWALT position. For instance, when I put up The New Thin, Shallow and Women’s Physical Standards female lurkers came out of the ether to tell all the men how horrible we were for endorsing “superficial” male nature.

My guess is the reflex to this video will be about Cameron’s intrinsic virtues and how she’s a victim of horrible male superficiality. She’s what they imagine themselves to be, hot and smart, so they’ll defend her just by association.

This model refers to herself as winning the “genetic lottery” to describe her so-called “achievement” as a model. However, the term actually describes the favorable treatment society tends to afford all women–be they models are not–due to the female role in reproduction. Once again, biology is a strong (though not exclusive) determinant of our social values. Models, like this one here, on the cover of Vogue are simply on the far end of the genetic lottery continuum (the PowerBall winners?) due to their possessing so many biological markers of reproductive success.

Her adoption of the phrase, “genetic lottery” and applying it only to models is unfortunate since it camouflages the phrase’s greater applicability.

“As with most women in search of a rationalization for the unforgiving brutality of their genetic draw (or inability to build upon it), she predictably resorts to the beauty-as-social-construct feminist trope. It’s interesting that even former supermodels will embrace feminist boilerplate when it serve their interest better than their looks used to. You see, it’s not that you’re not beautiful it’s that the patriarchy society has perverted beauty into what’s commercially applicable.”

See also: Ashley Judd. When she was young and hot and the world was her oyster not a feminist peep out of her. But when that wall got close, whoa boy!

The contrast between what women are provided with as opposed to men is drastic. This is a much broader issue than this model’s guilt over her success.

A conclusion I’ve come to in the past couple years is: a woman crying gets support while a man crying gets shunned.

A woman crying is still biologically valuable. She still has a vagina and a uterus. She could still successfully cary and care for a child. Thus she is embraced and supported by the tribe.

A man crying is a liability. His crying will alert the predatory animals and invading gangs to his position. His distress is actually a problem for the tribe.

It is a blatant lie that feminism is about creating equality. We have been misled into thinking that men should emote and talk about their feelings. Very few people in a man’s life will give a shit when he is going through a rough time in his life.

Women are afforded vast support and provisions that men will never know.

…..A conclusion I’ve come to in the past couple years is: a woman crying gets support while a man crying gets shunned.

Only to an extent. A crying women will elicit support and sympathy from men only if she is young and beautiful. Otherwise she is just an irritation that needs to be shut up,

A crying woman will elicit support and sympathy from women only if she belongs to the same “tribe” as the woman offering support and sympathy. Will a crying old black woman get any sympathy from a young white chick ? Not so much.

Men are not biologically pre-disposed to crying (not as much as women anyway) so when they do, no one really knows how to respond. Particularly if it is in front of strangers and the reason for his tears is not clear at all. Admittedly this is a very very rare occurance – usually when a man has mental issues or is having a mental breakdown.

Normally men cry in front of family, very close friends, people whom they trust implicitly or in front of medical emergency personnel so I don’t think he will be shunned in those circumstances, especially if it involves death or loss of something very very important to him.

“You see, it’s not that you’re not beautiful it’s that the society has perverted beauty into what’s commercially applicable.”

That’s the feminist view (the female view in general, really) in a nutshell. It’s not the idea of being judged by one’s sexual attractiveness that they object to; it’s the idea that any woman, anywhere. might be weighed in the balances and found wanting by any man she finds attractive. Women reserve their right to tell unattractive men that they aren’t good enough to be with them, but they HATE HATE HATE it when the men they find attractive assert their right to tell them the same thing.

Women see choosiness as a virtue for themselves, but as a vice for men. Every girl deserves her Prince Charming; while every guy should just be thankful for anything he can get.

Interesting. I personally believe this pushing of the beauty “drug” is done more by business interest and women themselves (who usually have an interest in the beauty business/industry).

It was my mother who kept getting on my case for not dollling myself up to look pretty for boys/men while it was my father who pushed me to achieve academically and otherwise. He felt it was best not to have to rely on anyone or at least be able to take care of myself in the event that I couldn’t find anyone to do so. That is just such a practical male response – so much more useful than my mum’s attitude of being helpless in the hope that a man will come to help.

“If it were true that beauty is a social construct, then it would stand to reason that with enough social reengineering the Rosy O’ Donnells of the world end up becoming Genetic Celebrities.”

Ha.

Women go giddy for alluring, cocksure men because they’ve been socially conditioned to swoon over the flashy badboy. America has been persecuting self-concious, male dullards for centuries and it’s time to end the intolerance.

Dontcha just love how angry girl-worlders get at men who have the temerity to write something like The Red Queen or Sperm Wars because they presume men reading and internalizing evolutionary principles relating to human sexuality will use it to justify their infidelity or carousing?

Then we read something like this and the utility is all the more useful.

“pretty blondes with flat stomachs, long legs, perfect small asses and mediumish tits…” THIS was EXACTLY the ‘Genetic Celebrity’ template that brought me low a few years back; drove me to despair, thence to Roissy, Roosh and then Rollo. What made it worse in hindsight was that she was a shallow, self-absorbed DC feminist… but I rolled beta, and badly.

Up until a couple years ago I still had a thing for her, though faded and indistinct – even though I knew how bad she turned out to be for me, and furthermore that I’d absolutely never have anything more to do with her. But that those oneitis twinges still dwelt deep down inside demonstrates just how powerful that emotional trigger can affect a man.

Awareness and a direct grappling with the phenomenon was the only saving solution. Biology is indeed a bitch.

Just to clear something up, there is a substantial difference between a TED talk and a TEDx talk [which this talk is].

The TED talks are the ‘real deal’ and created with a lot of academic backup and committee review and I believe they are an ‘invitation only’ sort of affair. TEDx talks are community group based ventures that are allowed and encouraged to use the TED branding to lend these smaller scale talks, the credence and gravity of the ‘official’ TED talks.
Essentially, anybody with a strong sense of their own importance can ‘do’ a TEDx talk.

Personally I’ve always been slightly annoyed with the TED & TEDx arrangement. I think the branding is too close and people don’t always get the distinction between the two. If I was in charge of the branding, I’d change the TEDx logo to a different colour from red. But that’s probably a discussion for another blog.

Holy Shit. These are the most privledged, entitled birds in the world.

Basically if I get this right, her whole arguement is that some women aren’t as genetically good as the women that are blessed with athletism. Instead of accepting this fact and then doing the absolute best with what she’s got and through determination and grit achieving the success, she wants an excuse for why you shouldn’t have to workout. Also, it seems like she wants to have the same status as the women that workout because it’s not her fault that she wasn’t born with same genetic makeup as Lolo Jones.

And like I’ve said before, I WISH all I had to do was eat a healthy diet and go for a run every day, to have the world at my feet. I would be on that shit like a Jezebel writer on a cupcake. It’s mind-blowing when a girl actively refuses to do that and then bitches that she can’t land a guy who’s been forced since adulthood to compete and prosper physically, financially, emotionally, career(ically? lol), mentally, etc. with every other dude out there for scraps of attention.

brb all I have to do to have a millionaire chick marry me and give me all her money is eat a salad every day. brb ACTIVELY EATING DONUTS INSTEAD lol

Great article, Rollo. I didn’t watch the video, but I did “read” (ha! ha!) my new Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition, and lock clockwork, the woman who most fit my template had me drooling in no time as she wore barely anything. It’s the way I’m wired, not going to apologize for it … and yes, I’ve dated some versions of her, not as nice, but similar template.

The whole idea that men are taught to prefer a certain type of woman by society is one of my favorite Feminist bits of nonsense, right up there with “gender is a social construct”. No one had to teach me to be attracted to healthy, fit, sweet, nurturing, feminine women with long hair – I worked it out all on my own. The boner doth not lie.

It seems there is no amount of obvious contradictory evidence that will dislodge the Feminist from their fantasy universe where they are owed everything they want without having to earn it.

So, all this plus the post from a couple of posts ago about losing something you had so invested in, is at the root of the murder case of the South African Bladerunner dude.

Can someone take a stab at trying to frame what is going in there in Rollo language?

MY opinion was the couple was at the 90 day mark and the girl just couldn’t deal with the no legs thing in a sexual manner. The celebrity of the man wore off and even though the girl wanted to make it work she couldn’t and had been withdrawing.

Do women have the same concept of an imprinted ideal and is this the basic of the soulmate myth?

Also even though the majority of your relationships have with your imprinted ideal, given the tendency/probability/likelihood of fixation/oneitis/adolescent love patterns would you advise men to run the other way when they actually encounter this imprinted ideal? Or least to be aware of what they have on their hands and keep this person at emotional arm’s length because of the potential for emotional harm?

At what age does this imprinting occur? I had a math teacher when I was a senior in high school. She was a tall, kind of brainy in a model sort of way, and she became my ideal and really to this day, my interest perks up over women taller than 5’9″. I mean I would go all oneitis sniper over this sort of tall girl. My most classic case of drooling betahood was over one that looked like Cybil Shepard. (Fortunately I got a clue fairly quickly and let it go) I am 6’3″ and I wonder if there was something back in firmware that said “Hey, tall is good. Tall kids then.” or whether it was this ideal woman being a daily thing at a key age.

“Do women have the same concept of an imprinted ideal and is this the basic of the soulmate myth?”

I know this was directed to Rollo, but I enjoy the Minter Monologues. I’m guessing that he’ll say no as I think women are more malleable in what they find attractive. In an otherwise bad movie, there was one good concept from Runaway Bride: a woman sometimes doesn’t even know what kinds of eggs she likes. I’m curious to know how he will answer.

I read the SoSuave thread that was linked to tihs story. It’s interesting on that board (which I don’t frequent anymore) and all the apologists and calling guys “haters” for calling this woman out on her hypocrisy.

PlayerHerMan — quoted in the initial story — had a good follow up comment. Here it is:
*********************************************************************
So we should all give her a standing ovation for pointing out the obvious? Its not like she is saying something profoundly mind-blowing here. This is basic common sense that anyone who isn’t delusional can easily see.

She is admitting she is “lucky”. Similar to how a lottery winner can say: “Yeah, I didn’t work for this money.. I bought a one dollar ticket and now I’m rich”.

Should we stand up and clap for a lottery winner admitting they are a lottery winner?

Your most is a perfect example of how men have become faggots. We set the bar so LOW for female behavior that whenever a woman does anything even marginally “nice” we believe she deserves a gold metal
****************************************************************

I am about Mark’s age and what I say here may rankle some others, but here goes: the imprinting manifests itself when sexual maturation reaches the point where “the light comes on” and you melt when you see your template appear before you, whether in person or on-screen. For me it was age 15 in HS and it was a long-haired, slender, not-too-buxom, average-cute tall girl one row over. Never had a chance, but to be fair I wasn’t ready yet to handle what by HS standards was an HB8. That would come later.

I am a firm believer that things like sexual orientation or chosen imprint/template cannot be discerned until the “juices start flowing” and you actually see it and salute. I think those who are convinced they can tell someone is trans/gay/asexual/pedo/ladies’ man, etc. in childhood are talking out their ass. Those things CANNOT be discerned pre-puberty, and any adults (they are multitudes, sadly) who try to “peg” someone earlier than that for political or victim whoring reasons should go suck donkey dick.

Don’t know about “running away” from the imprint type to avoid possible rejection and butthurt, that sounds extreme, though of course care should be taken. I say this while confessing my college-age self would have been the picture next to “nice guy beta” in the PUA dictionary who for a long time DID “run away” when I shouldn’t have. I eventually did get with a gal who hit all my marks, and it was fine, though it didn’t work out, and good thing too in retrospect. That said, one should not be too insistent on refusing anyone but the chosen implant type. Despite my “inbred” preference for the tall slender gamine female, my current relationship breaks all those “rules”: short, small, buxom (but NOT round), medium-length blond-gone-brunette hair. And I couldn’t care less. Take that for what it is worth.

Okay okay, I’m with you in dismissing 99% of what she says under: beauty is genetic not cultural, female imperative, impending wall, ect.

But isn’t it striking, those photos of her in the magazines vs her at the slumber party and playing soccer? What is going on there?

I’m not saying that it supports any of her points, but it’s striking to see the degree to which the photos are manipulated.

If girls are celebrated for ‘just being themselves’ (vs men who need to become useful), why do they mess with the images of her so much in the ads? I suppose we’d argue it has more to do with selling products to women than male sexuality?

Another woman laments her past and realizes it was good to be ogled at. Altho she dabbles in a few tropes about men being perfectly free to acquire younger women and discard the old wife (only in hollywood most of the time vs. real hypergamous dumping of husbands by majority of women) she still makes a few salient points about the wall.

Why do women freak out with men dating/marrying younger women? I don’t care if older women date younger men? They always expect men to get upset if Demi Moore dates far younger. I don’t care, props to Demi (though she got dumped for a younger woman). Perhaps Demi — instead of wallowing in her grief apparently — should go out and snag some more younger men. Why not? I could care less who dates whom and who is dumping who for younger or older. Why is this such a big deal for women?

This is an old (1950’s or so) short story from the great Irwin Shaw (OK, I read a lot, majored in the humanities in college) … it’s the definitive husband-looks-at-women theme with wife getting on his case about it. The husband owns up and says he indeed does look like crazy, I think a sentence there is, “I have eyes and I use them” or something like that. He tells his wife that he loves her, but also loves to look and it doesn’t mean he doesn’t love her. The ending is priceless. (I once made the mistake of showing a woman this story and she didn’t get it, “He’s just a horndog!” she bemoaned. Typical.)

Lit geeks only, story is kind of long (a bit dated, too), so read if you want or ignore it if you want. Men are visually wired, not sure why that’s confusing to women.

Older men generally have a higher value in the SMP. It is a direct threat to female SM power when a man waits until he’s 45 (when he has resources and success behind him), and then marries someone who is 25(which is what these women likely presume happened). This is nearly the inverse of the situation where a woman rides the carosel until she’s hit the wall, and then settles for a beta.

In the perception of the ladies (mostly the older ladies who get upset) it’s simply a complete distortion of the SMP which they are likely part of (if they’re single). To them this older and successful man should be available to them now, and should have been available to them when they were younger so that they could now be enjoying his success. The sad and hilarious fact is this man either was available to them and he just didn’t give them the tingles because he wasn’t successful enough yet; OR he wasn’t available BECAUSE he was trying to be successful. It’s one of those cases where women en masse fail to properly examine their own desires and what is required to fill them, and completely miss on the value of human potential focusing instead on the short-term.

What women also fail to realize is that it takes more patience and self-control to do what the man did (presuming he actually waited until 45) than the women will ever know. Again, it’s the complete inverse of riding the carosel, which takes no self-control whatsoever.

You pretend to be built and dressed like a bouncer – horseshit! Art school major, liquor bottle designer, guitar player of a failed metal band…do your yuppie co-workers feel threatened by your gangster appearance?

Have your really figured out the nature of woman? Is that all – evo-psych and game (invented and perpetuated by shysters)? And what would you know about positive masculinity anyway – in your 20s you were a bad boy who appealed to strippers, pornstars and sluts – any girl with a Cluster B personality disorder. You’ve shown a contempt for religion and “covertly” wished those virgin girls and boys would rack up sexual experience so as to mature “sexually and intellectually”. (Of course, you mentioned that there should be a balance between puritanism and decadence. lol)

For a 46 year old blowhard, your writing skills betray even your unclear thoughts and your incoherent philosophy (always amended, never integrated). Yes, this is the feminine imperative talking, because it betrays your core philosophy.

You pretend to be built and dressed like a bouncer – horseshit! Art school major, liquor bottle designer, guitar player of a failed metal band…do your yuppie co-workers feel threatened by your gangster appearance?

Bouncers don’t dress well, they wear what they’re told. Yes depending on the club they have a very nice uniform code. They’re also generally not built well. The bouncers that clubs hire weigh a lot, because in a fight weight matters more than strength (if you’d ever been in a real fight you’d know this). They’re not actually built in a healthy or strength-to-weight optimum way at all. Pretending to be built like a bouncer is like pretending to be built like William Perry (if your football knowledge is lacking, I’m sorry for you), i.e., fat and relatively tall. So this put-down fails on its face.

If he appears to be a gangster, that would seem to contradict him being dressed well, wouldn’t it? Seriously, at least try to demonstrate some cognitive harmony.

Have your really figured out the nature of woman? Is that all – evo-psych and game (invented and perpetuated by shysters)? And what would you know about positive masculinity anyway – in your 20s you were a bad boy who appealed to strippers, pornstars and sluts – any girl with a Cluster B personality disorder. You’ve shown a contempt for religion and “covertly” wished those virgin girls and boys would rack up sexual experience so as to mature “sexually and intellectually”. (Of course, you mentioned that there should be a balance between puritanism and decadence. lol)

Based on this paragraph, I can say that proof exists that not every woman in the world understands their own nature very well.

For a 46 year old blowhard, your writing skills betray even your unclear thoughts and your incoherent philosophy (always amended, never integrated). Yes, this is the feminine imperative talking, because it betrays your core philosophy.

So, writing skills betray unclear thoughts and incoherent philosophy? Is this a putdown on the writing skills for betraying bad thoughts and philosophy or is it a compliment to the writing skills because the clarity of writing was such that the specific problems with the philosopy (which must be wrong) can be revealed? This paragraph needs work, please re-write so that your intended put-down is clear.

“If girls are celebrated for ‘just being themselves’ (vs men who need to become useful), why do they mess with the images of her so much in the ads? I suppose we’d argue it has more to do with selling products to women than male sexuality?”

YES, THIS is what’s hiding in plain view. All this talk about sexism and oppression from the patriarchy, but…

I just don’t see how the whole fashion-model-unhealthy-obsession-with -thinness thing can be pinned on us regular straight guys. They try though, don’t they, they’ve got half of us convinced, wondering how fucking guilty we should feel every time we sit through a Dove commercial.

Fucking bullshit. We don’t buy the magazines or the products advertised in them. How the fuck are we oppressing them?

Maybe gay guys are a fairer target. They make a lotta calls in the fashion world, and gee whiz look, they choose models who look more like barely pubescent boys than Playboy models.

… I’m still trying to figure out why butthurt is so butthurt and trying (weakly) in calling out Rollo. My guess is to protect the female imparative, but that’s too simplistic. Most women aren’t really sure of their own hypergamy or imperatives. It’s sort of like Pavlov’s dog, they just respond to the societal norms they’ve absorbed over the years.

The reason why women identify with her and to project their own images of beauty on to her genetic ‘lottery’ is because they know beauty is the best insurance policy in an uncertain world.

While a woman’s rudimentary desires (security, a home, ect) are easily acquirable, their desire for a guarantee of their evolutionary lineage to be secure is never a sure thing. Even being married to an alpha husband is not enough for them to be satisfied; his interest could wane or an accident could separate them. Instead, women realize that being beautiful is the only thing to provide a long-term (long enough) insurance so that, if she ever needs, she can find a high-enough value man.

It’s like the beta CEO who makes bank enough to roll in some hot women, but who realizes there’s something amiss when he can get pussy, but can never get genuine lust from his girls. Even if he’s better off than most herbs out there, he knows at his core that his fortunes can’t last.

Is it just me or is this woman not really very attractive? As in … not very sexy? I think it was Nietzsche who advised women, if you want to be attractive, be demure (or at least fake it). Man, he was right about that. I would take Renee Zellweger, for instance, over this woman. A better example might be Jennifer Anniston, who was never noted as being some kind of 10 but who I always found extremely attractive.

“If you spend your life in delusion exploiting men and thinking you can live that way forever, its a harsh wake up call when you find yourself in your 40′s with no skills, no money, no kids and no men to take care of you. Scary stuff.”

What they get at this point is a crash course in the life lessons that us middle-aged virgin irrecoverable omega males have had ground into us our whole lives: unless it’s in their job description, no MOTOS will every touch you; you will be treated like week old garbage for the rest of your life; and its better to find some balm you can patch over this unpleasant truth, whether it be withdrawing into work, video games, religion or booze.

Welcome my son, welcome to the garbage heap out back behind the machine.

I just want to point out that I would consider a supermodel someone most likely to believe in beauty-as-a-social-construct, because fashion IS socially constructed. That’s almost the very definition of fashion.

That’s why The Beauty Myth was such an easy sell to women who have never experienced female beauty from a male perspective, but have suffered peer judgment for fashion choices. Why shouldn’t beauty in general work the same way? They’ve seen dresses become incredibly popular only to be mocked a year later.

In addition to the genetic template idea you put forth as it applies to one-itis, I would say that the volatility of female fashion helps satisfy male desire for novelty. Men do respond to female fashions, if only partially or indirectly.

Although to be perfectly honest I’m not sure I buy the genetic template idea fully. In my life it always felt like it was working in reverse. I would notice a particular female celebrity lookalike after developing the one-itis for the girl in real life.

the “beauty myth” breaks for feminists when you agree with it on principle, and then ask them if they should be attracted, then, to male fatties, losers and asocial nerds and awkward overall men will small penises.

if they think we should ban pretty men like orlando bloom and depp and pitt and clooney from the big screens and replace them by more normal, “real” everyday men, plus banning all forms of male role models that are about success, skills confidence and or power.

This weekend I thought of something similarly funny. My gf has got a pretty uptight (female) friend who’s easy on the eyes, thin et al, but now married and 30. (I actually don’t think she’s hot, but lots of guy probably did and do).

Anyway, this couple is pretty bored (and boring) and think of me & my gf when they want to go out during the weekends, because we usually do fun stuff. I actually don’t mind that, because, although boring and bored, they’re basicly OK decent people. Nothing much wrong.

So, they texted me: what are you up to guys, we want to go out!

I: well, haha, I got plans, but have fun!

Them: Oh, well how about [gf]?

I: she’s out too, I don’t even know where she’s at now. Anyway, bye

The conversation was a bit longer and they texted my gf too, but much more bossy and demanding. I thought they’d leave it at that. Next day, the girl called my gf several times, all angry, that she didn’t invite her, like ever, when she’s out on the time. She basicly wanted her to apologize, recant and atone.

She was stunned when my gf, instructed by me, told her to f#ck off, go out with her husband, chill down her demands or make some new friends to hang out with. We owe her/ them nothing, shit. I figured, a man calling another to tell him he owed him a night out would be laughed at/ ridiculed and be told get a life. But to her, it was normal.

This girl got away with all her female-in-her-prime-years privileges (FIPYP) and is now, for the first time, starting to realize that her time of demands for nothing in return is up.

1) I just looked at the Alumni Mag my college sends out, and Man are most of the old girls BEAT-looking at this age, while most of us guys are ok.

2) Sela Ward, who I find infinitely-hot even at her age, I think recently wrote a book complaining about how women’s looks are overweighted for their value; -And she was a beauty-queen pageant-winner herself; who also got 98% of her life from her looks!!!

While clearly plenty of top models are self-centered and oblivious to how the world around them actually works, many aren’t. From my experience I’d disagree that Cameron Russel is specially intelligent (relatively to the space sample of top models).
You seem to take her video, in which she basically surgarcoated the message that beauty in fact means almost everything (unlike what the talk’s misleading title implies) and use it as evidence of your(or PlayerHerMan’s) theory of women’s solipsism.
But there’s one problem here, Cameron is wealthy. She herself can’t fit this theory. She does not now nor she will ever need men to depend on. She herself didn’t go through what the women you talk about go through. She has several houses, hobbies, friends, her social status buy her entrance on countless upper circles where she’ll be able to meet till the day she dies all types of men who are also wealthy and feel unfulfilled trying to have anything more than sex with brainless 20 year-olds. And if she happens to be rejected by wealthy dudes, she’ll still have plenty of lower class ones interested in her.

For their own part, these women living on the outside of beauty, in the context Cameron represents to them, even the most staunchly intellectual amongst them wants to feel some sort of kinship with her. These are the women who’d hack up in disgust at commercials with the message “don’t hate me because I’m beautiful”, but when Cameron delivers the same message in a more intellectually palatable way, they embrace her surrender to the greater sisterhood. The hate her, but they love her.

The Churchian woman’s take on this is, of course, “don’t hate me because (God made me) beautiful”. From the Christianity Today article about Ms. Cameron, “Preach On, Victoria’s Secret Model”:

if I don’t admit to my privileges, blessings and opportunities, I fail to acknowledge the One who gave them to me. Strangely, it’s in denying privilege and blessing that I really make it all about me. When I hear a Victoria’s Secret model owning up to the role her beauty has played in her life, I hear her praising the Giver of those gifts.

Jesus. An excrutiating presentation. So cringe-inducing I stopped and started her vid a dozen times before I got to the end.

She’s not very intelligent and her talk’s moronic. It feels like a class presentation where the professor asks students to see how what they learned in class applies to their lives. This chick’s decided her good looks makes her one of life’s victims. The world keeps giving her stuff and treating her nice because of her looks, not because of who she really is.

She talks as if it never occurred to her that if she weren’t a hot chick, she would never have been invited to TED.

Although she comes across as upper class-/rich girl-entitled as much hot-chick-entitled. I googled her — her mom’s one of the founders of zip car. Which suggests she’d be just as entitled-acting if she weren’t a hot babe.

First off – model lecturer nailed it re: getting free stuff. Even as a young man I never got a ticket – growing up in a crappy neighborhood, I could see the cop visibly relax upon seeing me. I even had a female hard-ass cop completely change her demeanor once she had my license and got a good look at me.

Interestingly enough, now that I am divorced and single with a vasectomy – I am much more open to different women – all still slender and attractive, but not as absolutely rigid. They can vary from my previous “must haves” as to height (tall!), race (upper white only, blue or green eyes) and physicality (med. to narrow hips, long legs, med. breasts, tending toward broad but not overly muscular shoulders, high round ass – basically a white girl version of a female african-american track star.) I have my aristocrat aryan super children – so mission accomplished and now I can play. (discretely of course, I have aspirations for who my children will marry/procreate with – genetically speaking).

Could it be called a genetic lottery if you have intentionally sought to selectively breed/marry to advance your family brand with desirable traits?

YOHAMI, rereading my comment it was indeed muddled and confuse. However I’d argue that the excerpt from PlayHerMan, too, interconnects the ideas of female solipsism and hypergamy, it is claimed that women’s failure to step out of their bubbles (induced by the received advantages and the frequent ego stroking ) and perceive how the world really works prevents them from safeguarding an assumed necessary insurance policy(i.e. a good male provider) earlier in their adult lives.

I’m not a feminist (not an “anti-feminist” either), but these overarching evolutionary psychological analyses of women(and men), while not bothering me as much as some feminist generalizations, still strike me as a bit too dismissive of individual variance within our species, regardless of gender. But anyway, my opinions could change, I feel that I need to reflect more on those issues before opening my mouth again.

“You seem to take her video, in which she basically surgarcoated the message that beauty in fact means almost everything (unlike what the talk’s misleading title implies) and use it as evidence of your(or PlayerHerMan’s) theory of women’s solipsism.
But there’s one problem here, Cameron is wealthy. She herself can’t fit this theory. She does not now nor she will ever need men to depend on.”

The need from men is biologically rooted. 40 years of feminism, women’s lib and financial independence isn’t going to overshadow millions of years of evolution. Women evolved to try to obtain resources and protection from men. Yes, she has money, but money is only useful in a very civilized, advanced society that has a high degree of trust in its governing instituions. Her power rely’s on her trust in the enforcement agents of our society protecting her (i.e. the legal system, which is backed up physically by the police and military). It’s the same reason why women are still attracted to tall, built men. You can be a 5’0″ man with no muscle development and still be successful in today’s society, but it’s only because society has protections in place for this individual. On a more primal level, said gentleman might not fare so well (who knows though). Basically the point is the recent blurp in human history that is modern society won’t offset the drives that got us to this point in the first place.

Hey, I’ve seen those “Ted” concerts or whatever. They get up and talk…it’s for smart people and really new technology and whatever…like Steve Jobs would probably do a Ted”…and they dress nice, but not in suits or like at the office…it’s like, more sleek. And they walk around really thoughtful, and use those headsets so that you can gesture with BOTH hands. I can do that. I’ll tilt my head when I have to say something important. I’ll look really intelligent. I”m so totally gonna do that. AND it’s TED-X, so it’s more, like, modern. Totally gonna do Ted and get a headset. I’ll bet I can get more speaking gigs after I do a Ted. I could be a lecturer, like at colleges. LEt the Suzanne Somers’ of the world do their thighmaster commercials. I’m totally gonna be a lecturer.

I’m white but I grew up in Central America and Mexico. The girls I used to put on pedestals were usually pale Hispanic women with long black hair, big eyes, big asses, wide hips, narrow waists and big boobs. Skinny models like that chick in the video are attractive but look sort of plain and infertile to me. The type of chicks I like probably won’t age as well as the model though, and tend to get fat when they’re older.